Man rejected as trainee Garda

rookie09

Just seen an interesting article in the Irish Daily Mail,tuesday feb 9 2010,

A 25 yr old young man from tallaght who works as a security manager for Dunnes Stores. Has taken a case against the Garda Commissioner in the High Court to challenge the recruitment process after 3 failed bids to join the force.
He was rejected on the claims of 'failing to be of good character'.He was involved in a drink driving case but it concluded without conviction.The court heard he was questioned over alleged drink driving each time he applied and was told his application hinged on this.

The man wants to be made a trainee or paid damages in his legal action.
The case is due back in court on march 4,the outcome of this case should be interesting!!!

pa990

sec49 isn't a criminal offence..

There must be something else to it, that we're not being told

pa990

gardai can't get sacked for it..
It's not a criminal offence.

But i'm not prepared to give info of such people on an open forum.
Common sense dictates.. Ask around your stn...

Delancey

To the best of my knowledge the P.S.N.I. reject applicants who have incurred a Drink Driving conviction in the previous 10 years.

smellslikeshoes

delancey42 wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge the P.S.N.I. reject applicants who have incurred a Drink Driving conviction in the previous 10 years.

Conviction is the important word here, this man wasn't convicted.

meathstevie

If drinkdriving isn't a criminal offence than please explain why it's being dealt with by the criminal justice system ? I'm a bit confused.

pa990

meathstevie wrote: »

If drinkdriving isn't a criminal offence than please explain why it's being dealt with by the criminal justice system ? I'm a bit confused.

It's dealt with through the court system.
It's a road traffic offence, some one with a broken tail light isn't a criminal, neither is someone who parks on a double yellow, or doesn't wear a seat belt, or speed's.
All road traffic matters.. Not criminal matters.

Bear in mind that the irish court system deals with a lot more than criminal matters.. Civil, family, etc

Zambia

rookie09 wrote: »

He was rejected on the claims of 'failing to be of good character'.He was involved in a drink driving case but it concluded without conviction.

This does not mean he did not do it?

rookie09 wrote: »

The court heard he was questioned over alleged drink driving each time he applied and was told his application hinged on this.

Ok so he was asked questions in relation to the incident and his answers did not impress the selection panel. I would hate to see the day where a panel of selection has to hire someone simply because they cant prove he should not be hired.

This lad should take himself off and get on with his life.

rookie09

Could be a watershed moment if this young man wins his case and is taken on as a trainee.There are lots of people who got turned down on similar grounds,like this young man so we could have alot more cases like this if he wins!!

445279.ie

pa990 wrote: »

gardai can't get sacked for it..

True, I know of 2 who were convicted and are still in the job

Delancey

Yeah , but I know someone who got binned for it ( still on probation and that I think may have had a bearing on the outcome ).

Pete4779

I think any doctor has to declare any charges that were made against them, regardless of conviction or not as a significant portion of public service work obligations in health, police, etc., is based on the "character" of the person.

Convictions are a legal matter and up to the judge, but having a history of being charged with driving under the influence of alcohol is pretty serious, regardless of conviction or not (which can be struck out on technicalities).

Any offence against the Road Traffic Act is a criminal conviction, including speeding, AFAIK. Many police check forms will state specifically if they excude it "please state if you ever have had any criminal charges brought against you, or have ever been convicted of any offence (speeding and parking tickets do not apply", for example.

old_aussie

pa990 wrote: »

sec49 isn't a criminal offence..

All offences are criminal.........that's why they have laws.
Offences under Section 49(2), 49(3) and 49(4)


The most common type of prosecution for drink driving is under these three sections for driving when over the prescribed limits for blood/alcohol, urine/alcohol or breath/alcohol. This means that the Garda or prosecution must prove that the person drove a vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in the blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, section 49(2), or 107 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine, section 49(3) or 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath section 49(4).

Then why is drunken driving an offence?
If it's not an offence then why prosecute?
If it's not illegal to drink and drive then it must be legal to do so.
Then why would you be arrested for doing so?

Kelda09

District_9 wrote: »

Ok so he was asked questions in relation to the incident and his answers did not impress the selection panel. I would hate to see the day where a panel of selection has to hire someone simply because they cant prove he should not be hired.

This lad should take himself off and get on with his life.

Have to totally agree with District_9. Some people just arent right for the job and there may not be any specific reason. How many of us have gone for a job interview and not gotten the job and dealt with it and moved on. this lad needs to build bloody bridge and get over it. Personally, I cant see the lad getting accepted now after all this though.

pa990

old_aussie wrote: »

All offences are criminal.........that's why they have laws.
Offences under Section 49(2), 49(3) and 49(4)


The most common type of prosecution for drink driving is under these three sections for driving when over the prescribed limits for blood/alcohol, urine/alcohol or breath/alcohol. This means that the Garda or prosecution must prove that the person drove a vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in the blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, section 49(2), or 107 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine, section 49(3) or 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath section 49(4).

Then why is drunken driving an offence?
If it's not an offence then why prosecute?
If it's not illegal to drink and drive then it must be legal to do so.
Then why would you be arrested for doing so?

This thread is going two way's..

Not every offence is a criminal offence.. There are pieces of legislation that say x yz , but it would still be a civil matter. Etc

old_aussie

pa990 wrote: »

This thread is going two way's..

Not every offence is a criminal offence.. There are pieces of legislation that say x yz , but it would still be a civil matter. Etc

If it was a civil matter both parties would be represented by their own lawyers.

There was a public prosecutor so it must be a criminal matter.

old_aussie

OJ Simpson got off murder in a public prosecution (there was the state prosecuter against his lawyers.

he then got crushed financially in a civil suit, his defence lawyer against the lawyerb of the people sueing him which was a civil matter.

This is just an example in the US but it's the same in Ireland.

Civil matters have no public prosecuter representing the people of the state in which the law is statute.
It's one lawyer against another.

Criminal prosecutions have a public prosecuter representing the people(state) and a defence lawyer representing the defendant

pa990

old_aussie wrote: »

If it was a civil matter both parties would be represented by their own lawyers.

There was a public prosecutor so it must be a criminal matter.

My mistake .. I over simplified my example..
Just ask any solititor or garda.. They'll tell u what a an offence under the rta is.

the_syco

rookie09 wrote: »

He was rejected on the claims of 'failing to be of good character'.He was involved in a drink driving case but it concluded without conviction.The court heard he was questioned over alleged drink driving each time he applied and was told his application hinged on this.

wexfjord wrote: »

Innocent/guilty, thing of the past?

As he wasn't convicted, they're denying him by way of "failing to be of good character".

seamus

District_9 wrote: »

Ok so he was asked questions in relation to the incident and his answers did not impress the selection panel. I would hate to see the day where a panel of selection has to hire someone simply because they cant prove he should not be hired.

Absolutely. You have a panel for a reason - to make a judgement. Otherwise you'd just have people fill in some boxes on a form, put it through a computer and let that decide whether or not the person would make a good Garda.

The man's conduct at his arrest, during the investigation and during his court case would have been used to determine his character, and rightly so.

AlekSmart

If this lad "Got Off" in Court then he can only be regarded as one thing...Innocent,which means he committed NO offence in the eyes of the law.

the_syco

AlekSmart wrote: »

If this lad "Got Off" in Court then he can only be regarded as one thing...Innocent,which means he committed NO offence in the eyes of the law.

So? I'm not disputing his innocence. I'm disputing if he's of good character. Did he block the investigation? Did he lie? Did he act like a scumbag through the entire process? Sure, he's innocent, but he could be a complete scumbag, who is known to be a complete scumbag. And thus the Gardai don't let him in.

If someone "got off" a murder charge by intimidating the witness, would you think he should get to become a Garda, or stopped?

eroo

Bottom Line is this: ''(f) Application for employment as a Garda Trainee is made on the understanding that the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána retains the right to reject any applicant without giving reasons''

That is taken from the BR Form for Application to become a Garda Trainee. To be honest, I think there is something more to this story and if there isn't I still support Commisioner's decision. They rejected his application because he allegedly commited a very serious offence, probably not too long ago.

tinofapples

Perhaps the drink driving hanging over him and the fact he's from Tallaght ??

Maximilian

Guys discussing grounds for refusal to AGS is ok but commenting on a case that is sub judice and before the High Court is not on.

I'm locking this for the time being. ES mods will decide whether to re-open.

Hooch

And I think we'll leave it closed. When the high court ruling is in then we can discuss until the cows come home.

Personally, I cant see the case amounting to much....